PresClay_00

the pharmacist is obliged to act in accordance with the guidelines and rights granted by the licenese from the govt. The OP, as you so eloquently quoted, asked whether there should be a law. If there's not a law that says he has to, he's not violating the terms of his license by not filling the scrip. he's also not violating any ethical standards by not filling it so long as he does not hold that person's scrip from being transferred elsewhere.

why is it ok to allow doctors to opt out of performing abortions and not allow pharmacists to have the same freedom?

MD's pick their specialty- if they don't want to be put in a situation where they might need to perform an abortion, perhaps they should think hard about becoming an OBGYN. A pharm. doesn't have anything to "pick", their job is to see what the prescription says, possibly look up any drug interactions, etc if they are any good at their job (many don't do this anymore though, as I've personally seen), and give the person the medication. In my opinion, if you think you might have any moral objection to filling a prescription- don't become a pharmacist! There are TONS of drugs one might have an objection to for one reason or another. And the moral argument just doesn't do it for me. First of all, the morning after pill is not the same thing as an abortion. At all. It prevents pregnancy by preventing an egg from being released, or to become implanted. No implantation means no life/no cells dividing (or however you'd like to put it) has begun. This means a woman who doesn't want to have a child could prevent pregnancy, rather than waiting, becoming prengnant, and later having an abortion.

LaneSwerver

-- When the pharmacist fails to fill the script the owner of the store will/can fire him for it immediately. That is the job of the business owner NOT the government.

Wrong, the license is from the state, so it is within the domain of the government. In fact the pharmacist holds an ethical duty to uphold the state license requirements despite the business owner's policies.

So for this point, you're 100% dead wrong.

Once again, you're mistaken. The same state that licenses pharmacists allows them to refuse to fill any prescription for any reason. I made that point several pages ago...do you simply refuse to accept it?

-- When the pharmacist fails to fill the script the owner of the store will/can fire him for it immediately. That is the job of the business owner NOT the government.[/i]

Wrong, the license is from the state, so it is within the domain of the government. In fact the pharmacist holds an ethical duty to uphold the state license requirements despite the business owner's policies.

So for this point, you're 100% dead wrong.

Now I will answer the relevant question:"Should there be a law that requires pharmacist to fill a every script that comes in the door"

Nope, go back and read post #1. None of this is relevant. It's an out of scope straw man that has little to do with the OP scope.

see above for a great response, thanks Laneswerver!

Now for the other point. This is not out of scope, it just answers the larger question and if you read the entire post you would understand that. If you cannont force a phamacist to stock everything then you cannont make him sell something he does not have. If it is in stock and the pharmacist is not the owner then the pharmacist is completely within his rights to not fill the script for ANY REASON! (per state law) religious or not, and the owner is completely within his/her rights to fire that employee. How can you not understand how they are linked?

XYZZY

Your post is contradictory. If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states. So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case. You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not. I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope. Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

PresClay_00

Your post is contradictory. If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states. So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case. You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not. I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope. Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

for the owner/pharm, they are. we established a hell of a long time ago that a pharm who didn't fill a scrip for a chain would be gone.

Your post is contradictory. If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states. So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case. You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not. I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope. Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

for the owner/pharm, they are. we established a hell of a long time ago that a pharm who didn't fill a scrip for a chain would be gone.

who established that? now, we'll go beyond the scope of the OP's interest and entertain the different argument.

the signficant issue (for the new argument) is between a pharmacist refusal and the business owner's ability to dismiss the pharmacist. You seem to use the reasoning that any government legislation in this manner intrudes on the rights of the business owner's 'economic freedom'.

the fact of the matter is there is legislation in a majority of states that do just this. They intrude on a business owner's right to fire a pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions based on religious grounds.

Now let's see if the line-of-reasoning against government intrusion still holds given that it is actually support for your argument, since deductively it would lead to the opposite result.